Skip to main content

No claim if death is caused by fall due to ill health

The difference between a fall due to ill health, and a genuine accidental fall, would determine whether a claim under an accident insurance policy is payable or not.

Case Study: Kishan Lal Jain suffered a fall in his bedroom on March 16, 2009, resulting in a serious head injury. He was admitted to Jaslok Hospital and kept in the ICU. The hospital had registered a medico-legal case and reported it to Gamdevi police station, which recorded his statement. Kishan Lal was discharged in two days.

On March 23, 2009, Kishan Lal had another fall at home, injuring his head once again. He was admitted to Jaslok in an unconscious state, where he expired on April 7, 2009 due to cardio-respiratory failure.

Later, in July 2009, his son Pravinkumar came across an individual personal accident insurance policy obtained by his deceased father from New India Assurance.

Pravinkumar lodged a claim under the policy. The insurance company rejected it, saying the claim had neither been filed in time nor had submitted documents showing cause of death. Then, Pravinkumar filed a complaint before the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum. He sought the insured amount along with a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards costs. To bolster his case, he relied on the medical opinion of Dr M S Kamath.

The insurance company contested the case. Advocate Sapna Bhuptany argued that a claim under an accident policy could be entertained only in case of an accidental death, whereas Kishan Lal had died a natural death. The hospital case papers said the first fall was due to giddiness caused by a sudden onset of vertigo. The death summary of the second hospitalization records a repeat attack of vertigo. Medical history also reveals that Kishan Lal was suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure. He also had convulsions for which he was advised neurological evaluation and treatment through anti-epileptic drugs. The cause of death is certified as cardio-respiratory failure. There is no mention that death occurred due to any accident or head injuries.

In its judgment of March 11, 2015 delivered by S M Ratnakar for the bench, along with S G Chabukswar, the forum noted that the medical certificate did not reveal an accidental death. The forum differentiated between an accidental fall resulting in an injury, and a fall due to ill health. Accordingly, the forum dismissed the complaint.

Conclusion: If a person suffers a fall, resulting in death, due to violent, visible, and external means, it would be an accidental death, and a claim under an accident insurance policy will be payable. But if the fall is due to ill health, it would be considered a natural death.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Consumers-cannot-claim-accident-insurance-if-death-is-caused-by-fall-due-to-ill-health/articleshow/46901715.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...